D&D 5E Magic user back?!

[Ratskinner]

im not saying casting options for each one, im just saying the category for classes should be separate

Why? The whole point of having the "Magic User" superclass is so that you can point to them and say "this uses a casting method i.e. magic." Druids, Clerics, even Warlocks IMO, all use magic...hence are Magic Users. Even in 4e the words "Divine" "Arcane" and "Primal" barely have meaning, and have none mechanically. Just (as a default) keep them as tags on the classes for traditional campaigns.

 

[VinylTap]

Has anyone mentioned that because of this change and by making the systems modular, it's now much easier to apply your own magic system to DND if you want to. I think that's an important point.

From everything I've read, and the logical path to take as a designer, and to be able to make as many people happy as possible is to:

- Separate the magic systems from the classes
- Give each class unique abilities that are outside of the insular magic systems but with mechanics that still interact with each of them(stuff like spell damage, ranges etc)
- Default all the systems to their traditional class but make it explicitly clear a DM is free to swap, limit and expunge.
- Publish!


Is there anything wrong with this system that doesn't give everyone, more or less, exactly what they want? Other than the desire to railroad other people you've never met into your style of play?

 

[The Shadow]

I'm... less than thrilled with this move. It made a lot of sense to me to separate casting method by class. Then you can just say, "No warlocks," or "No sorcerers except fey and arcane origins."

They're going to have to make sure that every magic-using class has a clear shtick independent of casting method, or this is just going to boil them all down to mush.

Also, 'Magic-User', for all its venerable history, is a terribly silly name.

 

[Salamandyr]

I don't think it's any sillier than "Fighter".

 

[Remathilis]

A "Magic-User" class category?

Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah! ARCANE POWER SOURCE!

The character classes are divided into four groups according to general occupations: warrior, wizard, priest, and rogue. Within each group are several similar character classes. All classes within a group share the same Hit Dice, as well as combat and saving throw progressions. Each character class within a group has different special powers and abilities that are available only to that class. Each player must select a group for his character, then a specific class within that group.

WARRIOR: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger
WIZARD: Mage, Illusionist, Other
PRIEST: Cleric, Druid, Other
ROGUE: Thief, Bard

- Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition Player's Handbook

 

[Remathilis]

This is how I read it.

Magic-User: You're a guy who uses arcane magic. You have d4 HD, fight with toothpicks and sticks, wear dresses for armor, and tend to throw balls of fire at your foes.
Chose your type of magic:
Wizard: You excel at collecting arcane knowledge in a book, memorizing said lore, and throwing balls of fire at your enemies.
Sorcerer: You innately learn a limited number of spells, but can freely cast any of those known spells at your foes.
Warlock: You have a very small number of unique spell-like powers, but you use them til the cows come home.
New-Unnamed-Gish-Class: You are a magic-user who gives up raw magical potential for the less-squishyness of good armor and weapons.

 

[Grimmjow]

Why? The whole point of having the "Magic User" superclass is so that you can point to them and say "this uses a casting method i.e. magic." Druids, Clerics, even Warlocks IMO, all use magic...hence are Magic Users. Even in 4e the words "Divine" "Arcane" and "Primal" barely have meaning, and have none mechanically. Just (as a default) keep them as tags on the classes for traditional campaigns.

but all three come from different sources. therefore it would make sense to put them under different categories. but i guess i really dont care, as long as all the different magic using classes dont get put into one class ill be fine!

 

[Rydac]

I'm... less than thrilled with this move. It made a lot of sense to me to separate casting method by class. Then you can just say, "No warlocks," or "No sorcerers except fey and arcane origins."

They're going to have to make sure that every magic-using class has a clear shtick independent of casting method, or this is just going to boil them all down to mush.

Also, 'Magic-User', for all its venerable history, is a terribly silly name.

Couldn't agree more. The term "magic-user" might be my number one pet peeve in gaming. Hate it.....aren't all characters with magic items "magic-users"

I'm all in favor of a variety of plug and play optional magic systems but want to see separate classes with their own default. Just give me a wizard, sorcerer, etc. I'll alter later with an advanced rules module if I feel like it.

 

[Li Shenron]

I am neutral with the concept of class groups/categories, I think they would be useless.

I just hope that if they follow they route, they give it a better name than "magic-user", it sounds quite dumb... like "me magic user, you weapon swinger, he skill monkey". Maybe "mages" or "magicians" or even "spellcasters" would be better.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

I always preferred "supernatural effects-administrator" to "magic-user".